New Hampshire State Rep. Catherine Mulholland doesn't want you to eat Snickers bars anymore.
A few weeks ago, Mulholland, D-Grafton, sponsored a new bill to establish a tax on candy that was, fortunately for us, stalled in the New Hampshire state legislature. As I continue to buy tax-free M&Ms from the vending machine, I can't help but wonder whether the Mulholland is trying to legislate her idea of a healthy lifestyle rather than trying to efficiently generate state funds. In the words of a March 13 editorial in the Manchester Union Leader, the bill is "one of those bills the sheer needless complexity of which baffles the imagination." There are easier ways to raise money.
House Bill 820, introduced at the end of January by Mulholland proposes to establish a tax on candy (legally defined, in case you were wondering, as "a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces"). The tax would be up to 50 cents per pound, and the bill requires each candy bar to display a tax stamp, like the stamps required for packs of cigarettes.
Furthermore, the bill prohibits the sale of candy in stores and vending machines without a state-issued license. Implementing this bill, if it could ever become law, would be incredibly complicated. To start, wholesalers and retailers would have to affix the tax stamps to each individually sold piece of candy.
I understand that New Hampshire has a unique tax code (no sales tax nor income tax), and consequently it needs to find creative ways to come up with funds. However, the complicated nature of the candy tax would make it more trouble than it is worth. While I'm sure Mulholland was not advocating that 10-year-olds support the state financially, discouraging children from buying sweets seemed implicit in her proposal.
Not surprisingly, the state House Ways and Means Committee ruled in early April that the candy tax was "inexpedient to legislate," withdrawing the committee's support for the bill. Even though it looks like most New Hampshire Democrats did not support Mulholland's project, the Union Leader editorial claims that the newspaper is not surprised that a Democrat is trying to raise money by taxing "so many of life's pleasures and economic stimulants."
As ridiculous as that statement might seem, taxing "life's pleasures" does seem to be part of Mulholland's agenda. After all, she also proposed altering the way the tax on beer is calculated. In deeming the measure "inexpedient to legislate," the house was probably recognizing the bill's conclusion that the tax change would have an "indeterminable fiscal effect" on state revenues. A report that reviewed the fiscal impact of the bill -- which proposed changing the beer tax from 30 cents per gallon to 5 percent of the wholesale value per 12 ounces -- concluded that if the bill were to pass, the average case of beer would have to cost $13.50 to generate the same amount of tax revenue as before.
Just as with a tax on candy, time and money would be expended in a complicated process of tracking the prices of many different brands of beer, which sell at varying wholesale prices, in order to determine the tax for each of over 300 different brands of beer licensed in New Hampshire. The whole point of a tax, to raise money for the state, would be lost. With no real gains, there is no point, from a purely monetary standpoint, to a bill to change the way beer is taxed.
Mulholland's point, however, seems to be discouraging New Hampshire's children and everyone else from eating sweets and consuming alcohol. I find it problematic to encourage what Mulholland seems to view as the "right" behavior through monetary incentives.
Regardless of the fact that giving up candy and beer is a noble and even reasonable goal in the best interests of the health of New Hampshire residents, levying a tax on candy and unnecessarily complicating the sale of beer is not a good way to do it. Perhaps Mulholland should concentrate on the state's health and education programs instead. Someone should send her some tax-free Hershey kisses to thank her for caring even in her misguided way.
